Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Thomas Flight"
channel.
-
21
-
19
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
Oh great, cherry-picking mob movies when Scorsese also has made "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York, "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Age of Innocence", "The Aviator", "Hugo", and "Silence", just to name a few
9
-
You obviously haven't seen "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "Age of Innocence", "Shutter Island", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Silence", "The Aviator", "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Hugo", and "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", so good job on cherry-picking and showing off your biases
9
-
"None of his movies have done that well financially"
Hmmm, let's see:
- Cape Fear: 192 million
- Casino: 116 million
- Gangs of New York: 194 million
- The Aviator: 213.7 million
- The Departed: 291 million
- Shutter Island: 295 million
- Wolf of Wall Street: 392 million
And I'm not even adjusting for inflation here. Your statement applies better to Paul Thomas Anderson. Besides, box-office success doesn't automatically equal cinematic quality, otherwise movies like "The Last Jedi", "Independence Day", "Transformers", and "Avatar" would be considered cinematic masterpieces, whereas movies like "The Shawshank Redemption", "Grave of the Fireflies", "The Iron Giant", "Citizen Kane", and "Fight Club" would be considered garbage movies
Also, if you've actually watched his crime movies, you'd have noticed that the protagonist is often called out for his violent behavior, or clearly regrets it. On top of that, only a fraction of his movies are about organized crime. Ever heard about "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "New York, New York", "Age of Innocence", "Gangs of New York", "The Aviator", "Hugo", "Last Temptation of Christ", "Shutter Island" and "Silence"?
And what exactly is he jealous of? He has more than enough money to be satisfied with, and he has way more awards and general acclaim than most directors working today
Conclusion: do some research before you type!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"MCU films are like riding a ride at a theme park. It's fun"
And then it quickly stops being fun and ends up being repetitive and disposable, whereas movies by Scorsese, PTA, Tarantino, Fincher, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kazan, Hiyazaki, Coppola etc. are those that sticks into your brain for days even after you've watched it the first time, and can be discussed from multiple angles and perspectives for an eternity
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheHandsomeman
Are you really comparing them as a whole, or just their crime movies? Because none of them have crime films as their primary genre.
Yes, "The Godfather" is amazing, and so is "Apocalypse Now", but outside of those two and maybe "The Conversation", how many Coppola movies can you name that have actually been widely acclaimed outside of smaller circles? Scorsese by comparison made "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "The Aviator", "The Age of Innocence", "Shutter Island", and "The Last Temptation of Christ", while still making what's probably the second-greatest crime film of all time ("GoodFellas")
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So we're gonna ignore "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "New York, New York", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Age of Innocenence", "Gangs of New York" (not a "gangster movie" in the traditional sense of the word), "The Aviator", "Shutter Island", "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Hugo", "Silence", and all the other non-gangster movies in his filmography? Cherry-picking does not a good argument make!
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh great, cherry-picking mob movies when Scorsese also has made "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York, "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Age of Innocence", "The Aviator", "Hugo", and "Silence", just to name a few
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scinnyc
Manchildren wearing tights and pretending to save the world? How is that supposed to be taken seriously or be viewed as realism? Sounds more like schizophrenia to me. The best thing about "Birdman" and "Joker" is that they actually acknowledge how ridiculous and psychotic it is
"Art is subjective"
You do know what "subjective" means, right? It just means that it requires an actual subject (as in, you who experience something) to use your senses and experiences to judge an object. Even science is subjective despite having truth values
"But his genre of film"
What genre? He's made romantic dramas, black comedies, historical dramas, sports drama, satire, psychological thrillers, crime films, religious dramas, adventure movies, and everything in-between.
1
-
@scinnyc
Yes, religion is schizophrenic
"Facts can't be subjective. It either is or it's not"
Wow, another one who doesn't know the actual difference between "subjective" and "objective". These statements are objective facts:
- All bachelors are unmarried
- All circles are round
- Two plus two equals four
Why are these statements objective? Because they're independent of experience and are instead fundamental. Science on the other hand requires you, the SUBJECT, to make observations and determine whether something is right or not, and there are always possibilities for disconfirming observations and changes. Take the Corona virus for example. Doctors and scientists (in other words, various subjects) claimed at first that the virus had these and these qualities, but when they studied it further, there were new observations that disproved their initial observations and hypotheses.
If you didn't read those dumb comic books and instead took some real education, then you might have known this difference.
"Yeah, most of those genres don't personally interest me"
Well, so much for your taste in movies being diverse. What genres are left when you take those away?
"Why do you even care so much what I think anyway"
Because it's fun to see someone writing posts where they try to act as if what they're saying is common knowledge, but miserably fails with their argumentation. It's even more fun to see someone not understanding what "subjective" actually means
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dorukevcim7578
I get the party analogy, but I feel like you spend so much time in the party that eventually you start to make friends
If you can’t relate to or see yourself reflected in other people around you, then you can live with them for years and still don’t feeling anything for them. I know that because I’ve lived with such people.
The other struggles the characters go through very human which is I think what grounds the movies
That would be true if the film was either hyper-realistic, animated, hyper-stylized, or even a theatre performance; animation because there’s stylization and a requirement of suspension of disbelief just on the virtue of the art form itself, hyper-stylization because it highlights a film’s autonomy and has direct escapism from physical reality and over to something metaphysical, hyper-realism because it highlights everything that’s realistic but still has some subtle highlight of a film’s autonomy, and theatre because it’s a different medium and highlights not only craft, but immediacy and closeness.
MCU movies try to combine all this and end up creating a dissonance; they try to be stylized, but at the same time try to act as if this is actual reality, but it still can’t be seen as realism considering all the elements that are out-of-this world. It really doesn’t work for the medium of live-action movies either since the nature of that medium is to present a sequence of moving pictures, where each “picture” is seen in relation to the preceding pictures as if it’s creating a syntax. However, I can’t view MCU movies in a logical way since they’re too out-of-this world, but not stylized enough for me to see them metaphysically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedavidwood
If you think award shows or even art criticism in general are actually done in the name of art, then you're stuck in the 19th century. Ever since capitalism and mass-media reached their peak, artistic merit, authenticity, and "the aura" have been lost in favor of reproduction, instrumental rationality, profit, and branding.
Want a great example? William Randolph Hearst banned multiple newspapers from reviewing or even mentioning "Citizen Kane", as well as banning multiple theaters from even showing the movie. It's now regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time (often being ranked #1), but how many Oscars did it win? One! (which was for the screenplay)
Or how about "American Beauty"? Do you think that it won all its Oscars because of artistic merits? Nope! DreamWorks have openly stated that they launched a major campaign to just get it nominated. Heck, Miramax launched a major campaign to get "Shakespeare in Love" to win Best Picture, which has been proven further in 2015 when The Hollywood Reporter Magazine interviewed hundreds of members of the Academy who revealed that they actually preferred "Saving Private Ryan". The fact that a movie has to be shown in Los Angeles for a certain period of time just to get the opportunity for a nomination also throws the artistic merits right out the window.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedavidwood
Jeremy has the same problem as you; not being able to consistent. If his goal is to satirize a grouchy and obscene critic, then he can't throw in his genuine and down-to-Earth criticism on top of it, make behind the scenes videos with the exact same criticism, or genuinely justify that he's satirizing a certain type of critic. People tend to throw the satire card when they receive criticism, but barely anyone knows what "satire" actually means. Do you want examples of actual satire? Eminem's Slim Shady persona, the "you know what's BS?" segment of AVGN, Sacha Baron Cohen's various personas, GradeAUnderA, and Uncle Roger. They keep the charade up because they never lose their mask, and it's obvious what type of people and attitudes they're trying to target or mock.
Your mask was already off when you tried to justify that you're just trolling, and there's literally nothing figurative about your response here
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VEGITAS4
Oh yeah sure, why should I watch a movie about life and a true human being with actual human emotions and problems, when I can watch gay "men" in tights who won't let go off their juvenile fantasies? That's not beautiful; it's the cultural decay and the evil of mass-media, nepotism, capitalism, and the culture industry, which is the reason why we have Dingo Pictures for example which very soon will be the norm. No CEO of a major corporation care about you as a person either; they make millions to billions of dollars to deceive the audience through overidealized commercials and false consciousness, and promise something wholesome, but in reality give you that's nowhere close to what's being promised. A true artist creates something, whereas Disney just makes a product through a formulaic machine process
At least when Kant and Hume argued that art is subjective, then people actually appreciated art and had class and sophistication. Am I supposed to believe that beggars and POC for example know what art is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@guguemichaels
"The pandemic wasn't/isn't business"
Of course it is/was; doctors abused their power to ruin practically every single business on the planet without any compensation. In my opinion, every doctor, politician, journalist, and billionaire, should be forced to donate 75% of their total income to restore what was lost, and doctors should be tightly supervised, only get one week vacation, and only be allowed to use 20% of their total income on leisure.
"Why aren't we still using them now"
Because they only did the bare minimum on virtually every aspect, and only looked stylish, just like how superhero movies are only doing the bare minimum in terms of acting, writing, editing, cinematography, and dramaturgy, and only look good despite being formulaic and having no substance
"It's called evolving"
More like devolving if we get formulaic and mass-produced "movies" without any cinematic or generally artistic merits, and an audience consisting of unintelligent and mentally lazy children. Can you even name one superhero director apart from Nolan, and mention a truly artistic movie they've done that also isn't a superhero movie? Can you even mention some cinematic trademarks from them in the same vein as Burton, Lynch, Tarantino, PTA, Cuaron, Scorsese, Aronofsky, Bergman etc., because all I see are directors who are just blindly following a recipe and are completely dispensable. Same with the actors
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1